The MOST Important Bible Doctrine

[crossnote]

Blood of itself has no value in this regard, and even the blood of Jesus was ordinary human blood, and if sprinkled by accident on a few at the foot of the cross, this would have had no healing effect. The blood of Jesus is a figurative concept based upon the fact thar he died and his blood was poured out. The figure of blood has a history associated with the four major Sacrifices, the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offering and also the Passover Lamb and the blood than was sprinkled or painted on the door of the household. Some of the language and ideas today divorce "the blood of Christ" from this basis, but the blood of Christ is a summary of the whole concept of the Atoning Work achieved by Christ. There are other terms used, as Jesus gave his body in sacrifice, he poured out his soul unto death, and he gave himself. I do not deny that the blood of Jesus is a valid summary of ALL of this, and the blood of Jesus is the confirmation of the New Covenant.

You may want to reconsider your stance on the Blood of Jesus as simply a summary of His death or a figurative concept.

Acts 20:28 ESV
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.


Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Hebrews 9:14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 10:22
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Hebrews 13:20
Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

 

[Big Moose]

Greetings again forgiven61,

You have superimposed the word "Lucifer" on Genesis 3 and yet this word only occurs in Isaiah 14, which I believe is speaking about the King of Babylon. Again my understanding of Isaiah 14 is "my opinion", but if you would like to consider Isaiah 14 I am willing, but this is also off topic.

Looking at Genesis 3 we have the fact that the serpent is "subtil", and thus has the God given ability to reason and the fact that he speaks, then this is also God given.
Genesis 3:1–5 (KJV): 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV): But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I consider that this serpent was one of the living creatures that God created during the Creation week and when created he was "very good". But as a result of the transgression in Eden, the serpent was punished:
Genesis 3:14–15 (KJV): 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
No mention of Lucifer in all of this, but that is your opinion.

Kind regards
Trevor

Rev. 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev. 20:
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

It is true that the name Lucifer is only in Isaiah 14. In this chapter, the king of Babylon was addressed and told a parable about how he would be taken out or "cut down" by the Lord. The other kings of nations will mock him. In the middle of this parable, he is compared to Lucifer and how Lucifer fell from heaven because of his desire to be higher than God.

Jewish tradition speaks of Lucifer as the highest angel who fell and became the serpent and the devil. Revelation teaches that the devil made war in heaven and drew a third of the angels from heaven. It is not difficult to understand that Lucifer would be the name of the lead angel that drew those angels out of heaven, especially since Lucifer doesn't show up anywhere in the New Testament but Michael and Gabriel do.

If you don't believe Lucifer was the devil's name when he was an angel, that is ok. Then we just don't know what the devil's original name was. No big deal.

But it is clear that the devil was the serpent in the Garden.

 

[forgiven61]

You have superimposed the word "Lucifer" on Genesis 3 and yet this word only occurs in Isaiah 14, which I believe is speaking about the King of Babylon. Again my understanding of Isaiah 14 is "my opinion", but if you would like to consider Isaiah 14 I am willing, but this is also off topic.

umm no i have never used the word lucifer in my reply to your post. your semi right on just the physical blood. its what the blood stood for the payment for our sins. how ever had it been our blood it would have no power . Christ was not just a ordinary man . he was conceived of the Holy Ghost . No man can lay claim to his lineage not even his mother who bear him.

the Blood shed on the cross was not just ordinary blood. see your statement on the Blood is miss leading and wrong.

 

[Major]

Greetings again Big Moose,

There are many aspects that could be developed properly, including Isaiah 14. Lucifer could be translated "morning star".

You have not directly responded to my comments on Genesis 3. I consider that the serpent is a serpent who had discernment and the ability to speak. The seed of the serpent was Cain and his descendants and the Pharisees and Saduccees who crucified Jesus Genesis 3:15.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor, I understand where you are coming from, I do not agree with it but I understand it.

"Serpent Seed Doctrine" which you mentioned is not new! How many of you have heard of the Serpent Seed Doctrine?

1 John 3:12 is the Scripture most use and it says............
"We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. "
"Cain, who was of the evil one"—those who hold to the Serpent Seed Doctrine take this to mean that Cain was literally fathered by Satan.

Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible from the NIV says this on verse 12 =
"Jewish tradition extensively elaborated and underlined Cain's sinfulness. belonged to the evil one. A murderer was a child of the devil (v. 10), for one of the devil's first works had been to bring death to Adam (see note on Jn 8:44). Some later Jewish texts even claim that Cain's father was the devil himself."

Let me try to summarize what this doctrine actually teaches. It is often called the Serpent seed, the dual seed or the two-seedline doctrine. It is a teaching which explains the biblical account of the fall of man by saying that the sin of Eve was not simple disobedience, but sexual contact with the serpent, and that Cain was the son of Eve and the devil. Cain's descendants are, according to this idea, the sons of Satan, and this includes most any race or group that the serpent-seed believer chooses to dislike.

The serpent seed doctrine is also closely related to other erroneous beliefs such as the Christian Identity Movement and the Kenite doctrine. The serpent seed teaching was popularized by William Branham. Branham (April 6, 1909 – December 24, 1965) was an American preacher and faith healer who initiated the post–World War ll healing revival. He is said to have left a lasting impact on televangelism and the modern Charismatic movement and is recognized as the "principal architect of restorationist thought" for Charismatics by some Christian historians.

As I said, I understand WHERE you are coming from but I must also say that IMHO there is NO Scriptural support for it.

 

[Major]

Greetings 2404, Greetings again Major, and Greetings forgiven61, crossnote,

In general, yes, but I believe that the serpent was a serpent not Lucifer.





Blood of itself has no value in this regard, and even the blood of Jesus was ordinary human blood, and if sprinkled by accident on a few at the foot of the cross, this would have had no healing effect. The blood of Jesus is a figurative concept based upon the fact thar he died and his blood was poured out. The figure of blood has a history associated with the four major Sacrifices, the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offering and also the Passover Lamb and the blood than was sprinkled or painted on the door of the household. Some of the language and ideas today divorce "the blood of Christ" from this basis, but the blood of Christ is a summary of the whole concept of the Atoning Work achieved by Christ. There are other terms used, as Jesus gave his body in sacrifice, he poured out his soul unto death, and he gave himself. I do not deny that the blood of Jesus is a valid summary of ALL of this, and the blood of Jesus is the confirmation of the New Covenant.

I still disagree with the concept of substitution. Our punishment for sin is suffering and death, and we still suffer and die. Jesus as the sinless man suffered and died, yet because he had done no sin and because of the Father's love and fellowship with His Beloved Son, God raised him from the dead and thus opened the way for salvation of all others that affectionately believe in Christ and identify with his death and resurrection in baptism will be saved and have their sins forgiven.

Kind regards
Trevor

Somehow my brother you have forgotten that the blood of Jesus Christ was the BLOOD OF GOD! The concept is not a concept at all but is in fact real history based on the Word of God!

IF.....IF we say that the blood of Jesus was not the blood of God then we are in effect saying that Jesus was NOT the Christ of God! There is no other way to say it my friend. He is or He was not and if He is then the Blood of God was divine and not a concept.

Then if we reject Substitutionary Atonement we are then saying that we can not be saved!

If He did not die in our place so that we can have eternal life, we are still in our sins and we are all doomed!

I must reject that "concept" will all of my being!

 

[crossnote]

Greetings again crossnote,

Yes, the verses concerning “The Blood of Christ” are important, and here is another one:
Revelation 7:14 (KJV): And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
This could give a clue as to how the blood is applied, and this could also suggest an ongoing process, not just a one-off event.

And speaking of the Lamb we are reminded of the following:
John 1:29 (KJV): The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
I suggest that this is not only referring to the role of the blood, but to the Passover Lamb, where both the body and blood are involved.
1 Corinthians 5:7–8 (KJV): 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Also the body and blood are involved in the emblems of his sacrifice:
Luke 22:19–20 (KJV): 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Other references that speak about the body are:
Hebrews 10:9–10 (KJV): 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ephesians 2:16 (KJV): And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

1 Peter 2:24 (KJV): Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 Corinthians 10:16 (KJV): 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Two other passages that should be considered, as well as many more are:
Romans 3:19–26 (KJV): 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 8:1–4 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

Ok, but all you said here above doesn't seem to square with your post #43. It almost seems to be written by two different people... You had said...

"Blood of itself has no value in this regard, and even the blood of Jesus was ordinary human blood, and if sprinkled by accident on a few at the foot of the cross, this would have had no healing effect. The blood of Jesus is a figurative concept based upon the fact thar he died and his blood was poured out. The figure of blood has a history associated with the four major Sacrifices, the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offering and also the Passover Lamb and the blood than was sprinkled or painted on the door of the household. Some of the language and ideas today divorce "the blood of Christ" from this basis, but the blood of Christ is a summary of the whole concept of the Atoning Work achieved by Christ. There are other terms used, as Jesus gave his body in sacrifice, he poured out his soul unto death, and he gave himself. I do not deny that the blood of Jesus is a valid summary of ALL of this, and the blood of Jesus is the confirmation of the New Covenant."

I'm not sure how you reconcile the two, or line up #43 with Scripture.

 

[Major]

Ok, but all you said here above doesn't seem to square with your post #43. It almost seems to be written by two different people... You had said...

"Blood of itself has no value in this regard, and even the blood of Jesus was ordinary human blood, and if sprinkled by accident on a few at the foot of the cross, this would have had no healing effect. The blood of Jesus is a figurative concept based upon the fact thar he died and his blood was poured out. The figure of blood has a history associated with the four major Sacrifices, the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offering and also the Passover Lamb and the blood than was sprinkled or painted on the door of the household. Some of the language and ideas today divorce "the blood of Christ" from this basis, but the blood of Christ is a summary of the whole concept of the Atoning Work achieved by Christ. There are other terms used, as Jesus gave his body in sacrifice, he poured out his soul unto death, and he gave himself. I do not deny that the blood of Jesus is a valid summary of ALL of this, and the blood of Jesus is the confirmation of the New Covenant."

I'm not sure how you reconcile the two, or line up #43 with Scripture.

I am glad I am not the only one to notice that and think that as well.

However, remember that Trevor is coming from a position of the Serpent Seed false teaching. Since it is not Biblical, it will of course be contradictory. It has to be!

 

[crossnote]

I am glad I am not the only one to notice that and think that as well.

However, remember that Trevor is coming from a position of the Serpent Seed false teaching. Since it is not Biblical, it will of course be contradictory. It has to be!

I've only heard of that doctrine but never read much on it.

 

[Major]

I've only heard of that doctrine but never read much on it.

It is not a "Doctrine" but a totally false teaching!

It says that Stan had sex with Eve and the result was Cain.

"Crossnote", not only does Satan love it when we don’t expose him for what he has done here, but if we reject a literal interpretation of the serpent seed based off of racial “sensitivities” then we must also reject the Woman’s Seed for the same reason because Jesus came through the racial line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Dangerous!

That would mean all of the genealogies given in the Bible proving Jesus was the promised Seed of the Woman are arbitrary and meaningless. Every single one of them! Worse yet, we’d have to charge God with being racist for choosing one race over another race.

 

[crossnote]

It is not a "Doctrine" but a totally false teaching!

It says that Stan had sex with Eve and the result was Cain.

"Crossnote", not only does Satan love it when we don’t expose him for what he has done here, but if we reject a literal interpretation of the serpent seed based off of racial “sensitivities” then we must also reject the Woman’s Seed for the same reason because Jesus came through the racial line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Dangerous!

That would mean all of the genealogies given in the Bible proving Jesus was the promised Seed of the Woman are arbitrary and meaningless. Every single one of them! Worse yet, we’d have to charge God with being racist for choosing one race over another race.

Agreed.
Let me ask though, 'wouldn't the line (seed) of Cain had been wiped out in the Flood'?

 

[Major]

Agreed.
Let me ask though, 'wouldn't the line (seed) of Cain had been wiped out in the Flood'?

Mr. Murray and the Serpent Seed false teaching says that the descendants of Cain are Kenites.

“When you look for the in-depth meaning of “men as trees, walking”, you are able to see that Christ wants us to understand there are plantings of God and plantings of the devil. The plantings of that wicked one began in the garden of Eden with the conception of Cain and follow down through his progeny, the Kenites.”
Source............(Newsletter #195, Jan 1995. See also, #202, August 1995).

Mr. Murray states that the Kenites survived the flood which of course means that he denies the global flood and are found in the lineage of Israel, not Judah. (1).
He teaches that eventually, the Kenites permeated the nation of Israel and are the ones who shouted “Crucify Him,” in reference to Jesus, (2)

(1) Source.......Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993.
(2) Source.......Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993.

This "Serpent Seed" teaching is INCIDEOUSE!

I have not seen anything from TrevorL in some time so it may be that he could not stand up to scrutiny of God's Word.

 

[crossnote]

Mr. Murray and the Serpent Seed false teaching says that the descendants of Cain are Kenites.

But how could there be Kenites, where only the line of Seth survived the Flood; Noah's 8

 

[crossnote]

I met some Moonies back in the day, and asked them the same question. They also had a similar teaching.

 

[Big Moose]

Greetings again Big Moose,

There are many aspects that could be developed properly, including Isaiah 14. Lucifer could be translated "morning star".

You have not directly responded to my comments on Genesis 3. I consider that the serpent is a serpent who had discernment and the ability to speak. The seed of the serpent was Cain and his descendants and the Pharisees and Saduccees who crucified Jesus Genesis 3:15.

Kind regards
Trevor

Revelation 12 and Revelation 20 tell us who the serpent was in Genesis 3.

As to Cain, Genesis 4 spells it out.
Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the Lord."

 

[2404]

I am sorry brother but I do not have any idea. You made the statement of.....
"""For how could Lucifer have thought that he had 'better idea' for creation if he would have been an inactive agent? "

I thought you just misspoke and I did not understand what you said. " if he would have been an inactive agent? " suggest that he was an ACTIVE agent and I just wanted to clarify!

Lucifer as an active agent.
Isaiah 14:11-14 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!! how art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nation! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
As said, Lucifer was a great being, an active agent.
God creates for His honor and glory - for worship. Worship is not a static robotic process. In order for it to have value it needs to have depth and depth requires substance/revelation. God provides revelation so the recipient might stand in awe and worship 'in spirit and truth'. Lucifer leading in worship had to be in the know, and being great and instrumental he would have been well aware of the 'goings on', so much so that he got lifted up - lack of character. So God does not create wall flowers, His creation is progressive, moves forward. So heaven is an active place, things doing/happening. It is a corporate place, with God presiding.

 

[Major]

Lucifer as an active agent.
Isaiah 14:11-14 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!! how art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nation! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
As said, Lucifer was a great being, an active agent.
God creates for His honor and glory - for worship. Worship is not a static robotic process. In order for it to have value it needs to have depth and depth requires substance/revelation. God provides revelation so the recipient might stand in awe and worship 'in spirit and truth'. Lucifer leading in worship had to be in the know, and being great and instrumental he would have been well aware of the 'goings on', so much so that he got lifted up - lack of character. So God does not create wall flowers, His creation is progressive, moves forward. So heaven is an active place, things doing/happening. It is a corporate place, with God presiding.

OK. So YOU are saying that Satan had a part in creation. I can not and do not agree.

Brother 2404........your opinions IMO are very suspect. You seem to have forgotten that ALL angels were created by the Lord Jesus Christ and As created beings they are under the command of Christ. That being the case there is NO way that any angel had anything to do in the creation act!

There are NO/NONE/ZERO Scriptures that suggest any angel had anything to do with the creation act of God! Isiah that you posted says nothing about Satan being active in creation!

 

[Major]

Greetings again Major,

No, I do not endorse this idea. I consider that mankind is either part of the world and its thinking, a way of thinking that is the by-product of the sin of Adam and Eve. or we are part of the seed of the woman through Christ. Both Cain, Abel and Seth are descendants of Adam and Eve.

Kind regards
Trevor

TrevorL...........You may deny it all day, however YOUR exact, Literal words disprove your comments!

In post #49, YOU said.............
"You have not directly responded to my comments on Genesis 3. I consider that the serpent is a serpent who had discernment and the ability to speak. The seed of the serpent was Cain and his descendants and the Pharisees and Saduccees who crucified Jesus Genesis 3:15."

That is exactly the key teaching espoused by the false teachers of the Serpent Seed theology.
The crux of the serpent seed view which YOU are supporting is that Eve and Satan engaged in sexual relations. Consequently, sin is viewed as sexual in nature, as opposed to the traditional interpretation of the fall as sin being disobedience to God.
The Problem with this is that there is absolutely NO scriptural support. NONE!

You have fallen into the false teaching of William Braham and today taught by Arnold Murrey! Both are false teachers!

I am more than happy to discuss your teaching with you but you need to realize that what you are believeing is rooted in RACISM!
The Serpent Seed movement’s interpretation clearly leads to racism, as one expert explains: “As early as the mid-1940s, Identity preachers were building a new doctrine: the Serpent Seed theory. It is a fairly simple and straightforward belief: Jews are the physical descendants of a sexual union between ‘Mother Eve’ and ‘the serpent’ (Gen. 3). The serpent is variously identified as either Satan, or a demonic representative of Satan. As such, Jews are literally ‘Children of the Devil.’ Most Identity believers claim the serpent was a physical manifestation of Satan himself.” Furthermore, Identity teachers add that Cain is the offspring of a union of the serpent and Eve, while Abel is said to be the result of the union of Adam and Eve.
Source:........Richard Abanes, American Militias (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 162. ....Ibid., 162–63.

 

[2404]

OK. So YOU are saying that Satan had a part in creation. I can not and do not agree.

Brother 2404........your opinions IMO are very suspect. You seem to have forgotten that ALL angels were created by the Lord Jesus Christ and As created beings they are under the command of Christ. That being the case there is NO way that any angel had anything to do in the creation act!

There are NO/NONE/ZERO Scriptures that suggest any angel had anything to do with the creation act of God! Isiah that you posted says nothing about Satan being active in creation!

As said, only God can create, just as only God (Jesus Christ) can save. Anything you suppose is being said other that that is misunderstood.

 

[ModeratorTeam]

MODERATOR CAUTION: This thread is degrading into a 'yelling' match and has been Reported.

The Staff will be going over thread content and until that review is completed, this thread is CLOSED.

It may or may not be reopened.

We caution ALL MEMBERS to re-read Forum Rules 2.1, 3.2b and 3.2c before anything else is posted anywhere at CFS.



`

 

[ModeratorTeam]

Moderator Statement:

This thread has been evaluated for content and just a few segments have been removed under Forum Rules 3.1 (demeaning) and 3.2c (claims against individuals without solid, widely accepted documentation).

This thread is open again, HOWEVER, if anyone again takes this thread in the direction that got it reported, the thread will be eliminated and the person or persons disregarding the Rules will get a minimum of one week off as a 'time out'.

There is no place at CFS for demeaning, name calling or unsubstantiated negative statements about any individuals or organizations, as have taken place in this thread.


`